Instant messaging (IMs) have become an increasingly popular method of communication in the business world. IM is a method of real-time communication based on typed text that is typically transmitted via computers connected over a network such as the Internet. Some typical examples of IM applications include Instant Messenger® by AOL® Corporation, Yahoo Messenger® by Yahoo® Corporation, and Windows® Messenger by Microsoft® Corporation. This type of real-time communication has the benefit of being efficient and easy to use. The amount of data that instant message (IM) applications create every year is staggering—more than five billion messages a day aggregating to 750 GB, or 274 terabytes a year.
IMs are free-form, and when a user closes an IM dialogue box, at the end of a conversation, the content generally disappears without being stored for later retrieval. However, with the advent of e-discovery, and amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), many electronically stored documents including IMs have become subject to discovery in litigation. The IMs pose a particularly unique challenge to the litigation world. Content in IM communication is becoming increasingly relevant for litigation. Accordingly, this type of electronic information has to be taken into account during legal discovery process. In fact, some industries are creating regulatory rulings that mandate which communications must be stored and for how long. For example, the financial services industry has been recently directed to retain all communications with clients for a period of three years. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 17a-4 outlines which records must be preserved by certain exchange members, brokers, and dealers. The SEC has expanded this rule to include new communication technologies such as e-mail, the internet, and IMs. Efficient mechanisms are needed to allow consideration of IMs for document retention management and e-discovery processes in order to comply with discovery requests in litigation.
One of the technological barriers for the litigator is that business users typically use a number of different types of IM applications and each IM application has a different setting for archiving conversations, which presents a challenge for uniformly complying with e-discovery process. Currently there is no method and system to provide a solution to the above listed challenges.